Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
The title of the scientific journal I have chosen is “Loci associated with skin
reported in The New York Times (NYT) titled “Genes for Skin Color Rebut Dated Notions of
Race, Researchers Say” as well as in ScienceDaily (SD) under the name “Genes responsible
for diversity of human skin colors identified”. The study identifies genetic variants giving rise
to the spectrum of human skin color and enhances understanding regarding genetic disease risk
factors. The introduction of this responsible gene resolves doubts and clarifies the concept of
In this essay, I will examine and compare the distinctive styles of reporting, namely
SD’s skillful and intellectually informative reporting targeting at science literate readers, and
NYT’s simplified, engaging reporting targeting at laymen readers. I argue that both styles are
crucial in showing varied facets in which original science could be presented. While
Firstly, titles of the two articles foretell the focus of the news report and determine the
scope of readers. Although both articles are reporting the same science journal regarding genes
for skin color, NYT’s title sheds light to the concept of “race”, supplementing a flavor of social
ideology to pique the interest of readers. This contrasts with the plain and straightforward title
of SD’s, which directly points out the central idea of the science journal, and very much akin
to its original title. By comparison, it is observable that the technique used by NYT journalist
to attract readers who have little interest and knowledge in science to invest a portion of their
time is by revealing the implication of the study upfront. By introducing the notion of race,
the news report would appear to be more relevant to the readers, mitigating the far-fetched
This proposition is echoed by the choice of introductory photo under the title and the
photo caption each article uses. Figure 1 (shown below) adopted by NYT emphasizes on the
idea of human diversity, aligning itself to what the title advocates. Figure 2, contrastingly,
shows a Mursi woman whose African ancestry’s mutations is found to be associated with both
light and dark pigmentation by the researcher, which again, relates directly to the study.
Aesthetically, Figure 1 is more well-arranged and eye-catching, in which the theme of diversity
stands out apparent; Figure 2, on the other hand, has no discernible feature about race, and if
the picture has to be looked at alone, the specificity of the woman’s identity would be reduced
to randomness, meaning that the context of the study gives life and meaning to the picture.
Indeed, the extreme distinctiveness of the two depictions makes it hard to tell that they are
actually used to introduce the same study. Yet, if we are aware of the unparalleled approaches
Figure 1 Captioned introductory photo shown in NYT Figure 2 Captioned introductory photo shown in SD
A critique about the NYT’s approach would be the danger of side-tracking the readers
from the central finding of the study. The re-definition of biological race is not the aim of the
research, nor is it the main significance of the study. Instead, the researchers are interested in
the genetic factor of skin color variation among the African population, which may be
interpreted independent from the idea of race. However, by opening the article with an
interview dialogue with a co-author showing people tend to distinguish race by skin color, it
ties the research to the notion of race in the mind of the readers when it has slight relationship.
On the other hand, SD only brings out the idea of race at the second last two paragraphs as a
conclusion to article. This allows readers to stay focused on the scientific finding of the
research and remain uninterrupted from less relevant materials. Therefore, the title and picture
journalism, where accuracy would be weighed down by the threshold and relevance of the
report.
Secondly, the length of the article reflects the coverage of the study. By measurement,
SD is nearly 1000 words longer than NYT. It could be deduced from this number that NYT’s
account is more concise and brief than that of SD. Indeed, an analysis of the respective content
would find out that SD’s wordy and long paragraphs include details like the arguments about
the role of evolution, methodology of the current study, the function of each specified gene and
the process of trial and error, etc. Contrastingly, each paragraph is short and concise in NYT,
with approximately two to three sentences long. Short sentences help to maintain interest and
encourage readers to complete the reading. In my opinion, NYT is a story-telling narrative that
starts with piquing the curiosity of readers by drawing correlation with race, an aged concept
that is hardly disputed, and then goes on to illustrate how the finding shows that “the old color
lines are essentially meaningless”, thus increasing the sense of revolution in the otherwise
which lowers the comprehensiveness of the article. In NYT, however, the editor introduced
Neanderthals variants. Yet, little added value could be attributed to the richness of the article
arguable that the fact that the original report must have gone through strict peer-review process
Finally, the application or substitution of jargon also differentiates the two styles. In
SD, jargons are uncompromisingly applied, thus limiting the scope of readers. Yet, it is trite
that an explanation for specific terms are provided. For instance, when distinguishing between
pigmentation genes, the term “melanosomes” was defined as “the organelle where melanin is
produced”. Notably, some basic scientific terms are used to explain an advanced term. This
might not help with a layman reader’s understanding to the article, but rather confuses them
further. Therefore, it once again illustrates it is the scientifically informed readers that the
Less jargons are used to convey the message of the finding. Even if there is, a more
“melanosomes”, which reads: “Special cells in the skin contain pouches, called melanosomes,
packed with pigment molecules. The more pigment, the darker the skin.” The label of “pigment
molecules” replaces the difficult word “melanin” that SD uses. This substitution of jargon with
This also creates no gap in delivering the meaning of the study, savoring the essence of the
amateur science reporting. In the former style, the title tends to be more focused relevant to the
central finding of the research, the content is more length as it includes more details of the
original science, and it uncompromisingly applies jargons. On the other hand, the latter one is
prone to revealing the implication of the study in its title, the content is more concise and
jargons are substituted by general terms. The argument that both approaches are essential is
proved as it appeals to different type of audience, both of which enriches the understanding
and interest of readers to the complication of science. Nonetheless, there are still area of
improvement in their delivery of an accurate and comprehensive result of the original science.
(1348 words)
References
The New York Times, 'Genes For Skin Color Rebut Dated Notions Of Race, Researchers
Say' (2017) <https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/12/science/skin-color-race.html> accessed 1
December 2017
ScienceDaily, 'Genes Responsible For Diversity Of Human Skin Colors Identified' (2017)
<https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/10/171012143324.htm> accessed 1 December
2017
Crawford N and others, 'Loci Associated With Skin Pigmentation Identified In African
Populations' (2017) 358 Science